Warhammer 40k Core Rules Leaked

[Mogger351]

21 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

You're conflating the objective marker itself, and the 3" zone of control around it. In the above image, the objective is neither on, nor within 1" of a terrain feature, while the 3" zone from the objective includes the ruins, so this play is perfectly legal. 

 

Placment of objectives near terrain, or vice versa, is nothing new. Neither is positioning terrain in such a way that prohibits movement of large models - that's the downside to their raw power. In the above example, the knight player should have sent a smaller knight in there instead of the larger. Omnissiah knows they have enough movement to do whetever the hell they want. 

 

Similarly, sitting large models directly on top of an objective was an issue in 9th - if that knight got there first it could have put one end of it's base on top of the objective, and forced any models charging it from a specific direction no not be able to get within 3" of the objective. 

 

Strong agree here, I don't see anything objectively gamey or unfair in that terrain placement, it's not a niche scenario you'd have thought to check I imagine when setting the table up and it breaks no rules. 

 

The only solution would have been to make sure there are terrain features within 4-5" of an objective which is a bit of an ask.

[Khornestar]

I don’t disagree that how a knights army plans to hold an objective should be a consideration, and it’s balanced against their size/strength/etc. They should have war dogs/armiger as well, but I’m not sure the example with the Russ would be any different with the 60mm (or whatever) base instead of the big oval knight base.

 

One could fairly easily place every single objective in a similar enough arrangement* with sufficient terrain on the board. Would I consider that lame? Yes, I would, but we all know those personalities exist who see acting within the framework of the rules as fair game, even if that isn’t “fair” to their opponent. War isn’t fair, man!

 

Guess that means the knight armies should bring lots and lots of those nifty guns they’ve got to deal with such strategic cowardice. ;)

 

*And this is assuming both terrain and objectives are player-placed.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Khornestar

[Xenith]

Yea, if this kind of thing is happening regularly, maybe house rule player placed terrain so pieces have to be >6" from one another or objectives cannot be within 3" of terrain. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Xenith

[Prot]

I'm looking now, and aside from not being able to place a model covering the objective (40mm), it looks like the objective can be under a ruin for example? As long as the edge of it isn't within 1" of impassible terrain. The example they give is a ruin wall. But 1.1" is fine within that wall.

 

I don't know if it was a 'rule' or not, but in 9th we always tried to keep the actual objective marker outside of terrain features. IE: you could potentially 'control' the objective marker from a ruin, but the actual objective could not be in a terrain feature. This seems to be gone, which I don't care for. Also the example mission given seems to have player placed objectives giving a little more potential jankery to the above scenario.

 

 

[alfred_the_great]

WAACers are going to WAAC. 
 

simple solution: don’t play them. 

[Mogger351]

3 hours ago, Xenith said:

Yea, if this kind of thing is happening regularly, maybe house rule player placed terrain so pieces have to be >6" from one another or objectives cannot be within 3" of terrain. 

I mean to be honest that terrain is 3" from the objective, hence it is outside the cap circle, likewise even if 6" apart a russ is slightly over 4" long so the same situation still can happen (just).

[Interrogator Stobz]

The elegant solution is to say you can land on objectives.

And to avoid large model problems rule that minis in base contact with the one on the objective also count.

 

GWs arbitrary rules are stupid.